Are you suggesting that the fact of the settlement shows that the plaintiff's legal arguments were correct? I would think that from the state's perspective, a mere $40,000 (including lawyer's fees) to make this high profile case go away now is quite a bargain.

As I said before when this came out, this was bad all the way around, on both sides. The cop should have been able to defuse that situation long before then, without resorting to the Taser.

At the same time, the kid is a moron, and bears a large share of the responsibility himself. When the cop points a gun-like thing at you, you STOP and comply with his instructions. You don't turn your back and start to get back in your vehicle like you're going to drive away. You don't argue with the cop at the time you're getting a ticket. Don't think there was a speed-limit sign there? Take the ticket, then go back over your route with a camera AFTER the cop has left.

The kid was not aggressive, but he was acting stupidly and obnoxiously. The cop should have handled the situation much better to prevent the confrontation from getting to that point. But, at the point where the kid turns his back and walks away from the cop while the cop is pointing the Taser at him, there's not much left for the cop to do but assume he's a threat. He could be walking back to the car for a gun, or just to get in the car and try to run over the cop or anything. If you're irrational enough to turn your back on someone pointing a gun-like thing at you, you're irrational enough to do just about anything.

Taxpayers must unwillingly pay, and the perp in this case suffers absolutely no downside. Where's the justice?

In what way are the taxpayers unwilling? They elect the people who make these decisions. If taxpayers are "unwilling" to pay the settlement, presumably they'd also be "unwilling" to go to trial or to do anything else in relation to the lawsuit.

Are you suggesting that the fact of the settlement shows that the plaintiff's legal arguments were correct?

It shows the defendant considered them to be strong. There are no economic damages and presumably no significant medical expenses, and apparently little discovery had been conducted, so 40K is a good settlement for plaintiff even with attorney's fees. The Utah attorney general's office was defending it so the out-of-pocket defense fees would be minimal. The fact that they didn't even bother to move for summary judgment suggests they thought their odds of winning before trial were low.

''We think this is a legally defensible case because Trooper Gardner acted reasonably to avert a volatile and potentially dangerous confrontation on the side of a busy highway. We recognize, however, that this is a close case,'' Assistant Attorney General Scott Cheney said in a statement.

Perhaps he should take some lessons from this guy*. In fact, can we send that guy around to every department in the country to demonstrate that one can be a professional even in the face of amazing asshattery by the public.

Pat, remember, the trooper has a duty to be professional and civil - the citizen does not.

*Note that at 0:11, right as the trooper walks up, the citizen tries to slap the ticket book out of the trooper's hand. That makes it perfectly legal for the cop to order him out of the car and arrest him. Note that, simply because he can do so, he instead choses to defuse the situation. Really, can we nominate this guy for cop of the year?

at the point where the kid turns his back and walks away from the cop while the cop is pointing the Taser at him, there's not much left for the cop to do but assume he's a threat.

Yeah, because if someone retreats, they must be a threat. Could he be going for a weapon, or to run over the cop? Of course. But nothing in this context suggests this. Yet another example of cops thinking they're policing the streets of Baghdad; combat thinking applied to policing an otherwise free society leads to pathetic (or tragic) results.

Actually, that's a good thing, a very good thing. Regardless of your views of this specific case, the last thing we want is police officers worrying about the possibility of devastating personal liability while doing their jobs. Very few people would want to be police officer if the fact of being a police officer will lead them to have to pay tons of money on legal fees to defend even meritless lawsuits.

He may not be patroling Bagdad, but it's not 1960's Mayberry either. Cops get killed a traffic stops and not all of the perps look like Compton bangers.

You just don't walk away from a cop in the middle of a traffic stop, especially AFTER the weapon has been drawn. You comply and live to complain to the judge later.

The use of the Taser was premature and excessive, but the kid has to shoulder some of the blame. He should have shut his mouth, taken the ticket and fought it in court. He SHOULD NOT have turned his back and walked away in the middle of receiving the ticket like some ADHD five year old kid.

Oh,
This thread is going to get long, and repetitive. Just to weigh in, the cop was an ass-hat (so was the citizen, but he didn't taze anybody). The fact of a settlement is not evidence, but the fact it came before a motion for summary judgment was attempted says something (not much, but something). Needless to say, I think the cop was in the wrong.

BT, if you have ever received a small shock, it's similar but more intense.

i got the worst (most intense) taze which is one probe shot into my right shoulder, then a contact (completing the circuit) to my left calf. the greater the distance between the probes, the larger amount of muscle effected, and the more severe the taze.

it feels almost exactly what you think it would feel like, if you've ever been schocked , you know the basic feeling.

what is very disconcerting is the loss of control - simply put (assuming a decent distance between the probes) you just seize up.

it SUCKS, but i wouldn't really call it "painful", more like "extremely uncomfortable".

it is a VERY long 5 seconds, but the nice thing is that as soon as it's over - it's over. no residual effects - unlike pepper spray which leaves you in pain for 10-15 minutes of running nose, burning eyes, etc.

i must say that out of a class of about 20, only TWO of us volunteered.

friggin WUSSIES.

i have a lot of respect for it. i've carried it for about 2 years. have yet to tase anybody.

BT, if you have ever received a small shock, it's similar but more intense.

i got the worst (most intense) taze which is one probe shot into my right shoulder, then a contact (completing the circuit) to my left calf. the greater the distance between the probes, the larger amount of muscle effected, and the more severe the taze.

IANADoc. But I think that means a possible or even likely current path was through your Vega nerve and heart. Fibrillation can be caused by current along that path, which can make you dead very quickly.

Since you're still here, it obviously didn't. But I wouldn't volunteer to be a conductor for AC along a right shoulder to leftward and downward path.

Too bad "patient cop" was later fired for staging the whole incident. The first part of the stop he deliberately provoked the motorist, so that on his re-approach he'd look so smooth, calm, and collected. The whole video was staged, and it did cost him his job after the investigation.

Thanks for the taser current info. I had (and still haven't) any idea what typical taser current is, or the minimum current to induce fibrillation. But I'll take your word that taser current is too low, since whit's experiment didn't.

I would also hazard the guess that unless total taser current through the contact node is below the minimum for inducing fibrillation with a direct path through the proper nerve, then there would be some risk of fibrillation on the off chance that the current happens to follow a very constricted path (ie: not a broadly distributed path among surrounding tissues).

This shows why a civil suit against an officer would be much more effective than the exclusionary rule to deter police from violating a person's rights. The prospect of something happening to him (either civil liability, or any administrative punishment that is bound to follow the gov't paying a settlement) would be a much larger deterent to police misconduct then the relatively painfree prospect of a person going free b/c evidence is excluded. Also, society would win, b/c the guilty wouldn't get a free pass and a civil remedy would hold the police accountable.

The video looked like an encounter between two a**holes to me - but only the cop had the legal duty to act reasonably and politely. He is therefore at fault, although I'd be very tempted to assess the damages at $1,000, fault at 51%/49%, giving an award of $20. But when you add in the plaintiff's legal fees and costs, $40K might not even cover it.